 |
A call for sanity.by
|
|
| Viewed: | 584 times |
| Added: | 6 years, 8 months ago |
| " | RoareyRaccoon wrote: |
| Not interested. |
| " | GreenFur wrote: |
|
you know who also over reacts or cartoons? Radical jihadists. --GF |
| " | Stratus wrote: |
| There will never be a hate crime conviction for killing a cis person, even if they were targeted for that reason. Hate crimes only seem to ever apply to minorities which I'll add makes them laughuably unconstitutional in the US |
| " | Stratus wrote: |
| scratch my previous statements, PM me if you want to continue this civilly, i am willing to accept i may have a bias opinion on the matter but would rather have it as a normal conversation. |
| " | Do you know the difference between a CONVICTION and a VICTIM? |
| " | I didn't say shit about black vs white though I said hate crime against cis. |
| " | GreenFur wrote: |
| since we are on the subject of Muslims, |
| " | why are you not decrying the state of gays, lesbians, trans, and other LGBTQRSTUV+/- whatever's in Muslim countries? |
| " | we Never hear a peep put of you about that |
| " |
No, you rush to defend them, when every poll taken says they want to kill you and do NOT approve of your lifestyle. ==Madness== --GF |
| " | bbbuuu wrote: |
| That's the second time I've seen the 'Dunning-Krueger' shit.... the first guy who brought it up showed his true colors by blocking me and erasing my comment, but left the comment of some asshole who called him a faggot... because my response was thought out, and showed the folly in his whole 'Dunning-Krueger' argument, which he couldn't have in the open, because it was common fucking sense, while the other guy was being a legit dickbag and he only wanted people to see the dickbag comments, and not an actual thoughtful response, which is scumbag manipulation tactics. |
| " | bbbuuu wrote: |
| Dunning-Krueger, can be applied to YOU and YOUR SIDE as well, you realize that right? It's basically a way to call the other side 'armchair psychologists' when they bring up intelligent points, to try to discredit their point without arguing against it with facts yourself... while ironically, being an armchair psychologist yourself as well |
| " | bbbuuu wrote: |
| For your information, Dr. Pompous, I was reading shit like Fahrenheit 451, in grade school, while everyone else was reading shit like Ramona the Great |
| " | I was saying, again, that trying to use Dunning-Krueger [sic] in an argument, is basically like one side coming up with an argument (which, btw, they DID source, multiple times, from multiple places, in the other journals and submissions) and then the other side, saying "It doesn't matter what you say, or source, because Dunning-Krueger [sic] says you're a low intelligence person masquerading as a high intelligence person! Therefore, you are wrong, and I am right!" (also, just saying 'American Psychologist Association', is not sourcing lmao) |
| " | It's not something that can be argued against lmfao. If I were to say, "Ahem, educate yourself by looking up Dunning-Krueger [sic]... YOUR take on this subject is about as valid as a flat earther's take on geography, or my take on rocket science", like you did to Roarey, how would you defend against being on the receiving end of Dunning-Krueger [sic]? |
| " | Using Dunning-Krueger [sic], especially over the internet where you don't know the actual intelligence quotient of the people you're trying to claim Dunning-Krueger [sic] on, is the equivalent of saying "Well, your points don't count, and mine do! Because someone else says so!" |
| " | Danjen wrote: |
| Now realize which group of people own most of the media outlets, and... |
| " | Danjen wrote: |
| Where did I say anything about Jews or antisemitism? |
| " | Danjen wrote: |
| Let me guess, now you'll call me a Nazi or a Fascist because I disagreed with you. |
| " | Danjen wrote: |
|
Because he disagreed with the media narrative about gender disorders being applied to children? I'm glad he did, because it's just disgusting. |
| " | otterguy wrote: |
| Watching YouTube videos and consuming works by people who already agree with you don't count as research, by the way. |
| " | Danjen wrote: |
| So every single source has to be peer-reviewed and accredited before it can be accepted in an argument? |
| " | Have you even looked at these new genders? You think that's science do you, to make up new identities? |
| " | "gender is being misused as a word to describe individual personality differences when gender is simply a cultural representation of what men and women typically do in a given society." |
| " | RoareyRaccoon wrote: |
| Harassment that did not come from me. I remember leaving a comment after someone linked me to it, but I did not abuse them. If I remember correctly (I just checked and the comments have been deleted) I brought up that trying to capitalise with their own business on the hate train directed against me was pretty fucked up. Which it, er, actually is. |
| " | RoareyRaccoon wrote: |
| I advertised my commissions because people were making an effort to destroy my business, which is called libel. I explained this in the very advertising image description. Haha, you're deliberately misunderstanding at this point. Also, my comment to Spicy was satire. Which is why I haven't advertised that 'special offer' on my actual pages. |
| " | RoareyRaccoon wrote: |
| The reason I assumed Saucys journal was about me was because I was linked to it by someone saying it was and the fact that they had drawn a unicorn cartoon of their own (pretty obvious what it was about, lol). |
| " | RoareyRaccoon wrote: |
| I didn't attack Saucy. I don't know who they are. |
| " | RoareyRaccoon wrote: |
| As I've said before to Reiko above you, on a day where I'm getting literally thousands of abusive messages, my bad for slipping up in being objective. I didn't leave an abusive comment, I left a critical comment with a joke about a special offer that doesn't actually exist. What has your knowledge of me or the fact that I take commissions got to do with anything? |
| " | RoareyRaccoon wrote: |
| I've been drawing commissions for over 10 bloody years, you just haven't heard of me. Saucy never responded to me to set me straight, nobody did, so what am I to think? |
| " | RoareyRaccoon wrote: |
| I didn't even remember their journal until it was brought up by Reiko, that much shit has happened over a damn cartoon I can't remember half of it. But no, I make one comment and I'm a hypocrite. It wasn't abusive, it wasn't harassment and I felt like that journal was a direct response to the shit that was happening to me because I was told it was and it actually was. Big deal. |
| " | Preface to the OED Third Edition wrote: |
|
There are a number of myths about the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the most prevalent of which is that it includes every word, and every meaning of every word, which has ever formed part of the English language. Such an objective could never be fully achieved. The present revision gives the editors the opportunity to add many terms which have been overlooked in the past, but it should be understood that fully comprehensive coverage of all elements of the language is a chimera. That said, the content of the Dictionary is certainly comprehensive within reasonable bounds. It is also often claimed that a ‘word’ is not a ‘word’ (or is not ‘English’) unless it is in ‘the dictionary’. This may be acceptable logic for the purposes of word games, but not outside those limits. Proponents of this view expect dictionaries to include ‘proper’ English, whereas dictionaries in fact include many slang, informal, technical, and other words which such people might not consider to be ‘proper’, typically labelled according to the register of language to which they belong. It may be added here that the question ‘How many words are there in the English language?’ cannot be answered by recourse to a dictionary. Another myth about the Dictionary, and about dictionaries in general, is that they provide a comprehensive analysis of each word treated. Again, this cannot be the case in a finite text. But more important, philosophically, is that any dictionary attempts to provide information in a manner which is accessible to the reader. In order to do this, it is customary to subdivide polysemous words by their meanings and by the grammatical and syntactic forms in which they are found. However, any extensive examination of the documentary evidence for a language soon uncovers examples of usage which straddle two or more of the stated meanings of a word, often idiosyncratically and in ways which it is not practical for the dictionary to illustrate. The reader should be aware of this incongruity, and should regard the Dictionary as a convenient guide to the history and meaning of the words of the English language, rather than as a comprehensive and exhaustive listing of every possible nuance. |
